Kevin Pringle v Bhp Iron Ore

Kevin Pringle filed an application for unfair dismissal against BHP Iron Ore on 5 January 2022, one day after the 21-day deadline prescribed by section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The application was filed outside the prescribed time, and Mr Pringle sought an extension on the basis of exceptional circumstances. BHP opposed the application, and the Deputy President Binett was required to determine whether to grant the extension solely on the materials filed by the parties without a hearing. The Deputy President found that the application had low prospects of success, and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. The key issues were whether the reasons for the delay constituted exceptional circumstances, whether Mr Pringle first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect, whether he took action to dispute the dismissal, whether there was prejudice to the employer, the merits of the application, and fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position. The Deputy President concluded that the reasons for the delay were not exceptional, Mr Pringle was aware of the dismissal as soon as it took effect, he did not take action to dispute the dismissal, there was no prejudice to the employer, the application had low prospects of success, and the fairness consideration did not favour the granting of an extension of time. The application was dismissed.

The final orders were that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be dismissed and an Order to this effect would be issued with the Decision.